Can a Minister of Communion force you to Receive Communion on the Hand?

[Granatelli]

This question has been bothering me for quite some time now.

**I never receive Communion on the hand because I was raised believing in the Real Presence (and because there’s a good chance that the host will fall). **I go to a Catholic school, and one time we had a First Friday Mass. I lined up for Communion and when it was my turn, the Minister gestured for me to extend my hand. I hesitated. He refused to give me Communion unless I extended my hand. What could I do? I couldn’t hold up the line, so I extended my hand.

Can a Minister of Communion force you to receive Communion on the hand even if you don’t want to for personal reasons?

Why would a belief int he Real Presence preclude on from receiving communion in their hands where it is allowed? That really makes no sense to me.

I think there is a far higher possibility of a host being dropped when it is received on one’s tongue.

That individual might have been told by his pastor to only distribute communion via communion in hand.

 

[benedictgal]

Why would a belief int he Real Presence preclude on from receiving communion in their hands where it is allowed? That really makes no sense to me.

I think there is a far higher possibility of a host being dropped when it is received on one’s tongue.

That individual might have been told by his pastor to only distribute communion via communion in hand.

But, that is not the pastor’s call to make. Rome has made that abundantly clear in all of the authoritative documents issued by the Holy See that treat the liturgy.

 

[Emerite]

Our training for becoming an extraordinary minister was to present the host as recipient indicates, by extending hand or opening mouth. It is important to indicate to the minister how one wishes to receive Communion, or if one wishes just a blessing. As an extraordinary minister, recently someone just stood before me with no signal or gesture, and it took a while for me to decide exactly what to do. I surmised this person simply wanted a blessing. Please make it easy for us. It is awesome to assist the priest in doing God’s work, and we want the best for all of the parishioners.

 

[benedictgal]

Our training for becoming an extraordinary minister was to present the host as recipient indicates, by extending hand or opening mouth. It is important to indicate to the minister how one wishes to receive Communion, or if one wishes just a blessing. As an extraordinary minister, recently someone just stood before me with no signal or gesture, and it took a while for me to decide exactly what to do. I surmised this person simply wanted a blessing. Please make it easy for us. It is awesome to assist the priest in doing God’s work, and we want the best for all of the parishioners.

Your post, while making some valid points,contains something that should not be happening. Perhaps you are unaware of this, but, as an EMHC, you are not supposed to be imparting blessings of any kind in lieu of distributing Holy Communion. In fact, not even the priest should be doing this.

On November 22, 2008, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments issued these five observations as to why theses blessings in lieu of Holy Communion should not be done:

1. The liturgical blessing of the Holy Mass is properly given to each and to all at the conclusion of the Mass, just a few moments subsequent to the distribution of Holy Communion.

1. **Lay people, within the context of Holy Mass, are unable to confer blessings. These blessings, rather, are the competence of the priest (cf. Ecclesia de Mysterio, Notitiae 34 (15 Aug. 1997), art. 6, § 2; Canon 1169, § 2; and Roman Ritual De Benedictionibus (1985), n. 18). **

**3. Furthermore, the laying on of a hand or hands — which has its own sacramental significance, inappropriate here — by those distributing Holy Communion, in substitution for its reception, is to be explicitly discouraged. **

1. The Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio n. 84, “forbids any pastor, for whatever reason to pretext even of a pastoral nature, to perform ceremonies of any kind for divorced people who remarry”. To be feared is that any form of blessing in substitution for communion would give the impression that the divorced and remarried have been returned, in some sense, to the status of Catholics in good standing.

1. In a similar way, for others who are not to be admitted to Holy Communion in accord with the norm of law, the Church’s discipline has already made clear that they should not approach Holy Communion nor receive a blessing. This would include non-Catholics and those envisaged in can. 915 (i.e., those under the penalty of excommunication or interdict, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin).

Thus, such permission is not even up to the pastor to grant, since Rome has stated that these should not even be happening.

 

[Ocarm]

Perhaps you are unaware of this, but, as an EMHC, you are not supposed to be imparting blessings of any kind in lieu of distributing Holy Communion. In fact, not even the priest should be doing this.

On November 22, 2008, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments issued these five observations as to why theses blessings in lieu of Holy Communion should not be done:

Thus, such permission is not even up to the pastor to grant, since Rome has stated that these should not even be happening.

Without prejudice to the matter of whether it is appropriate for blessings to be offered in lieu of communion, it is worth stating that the document you quote has no proper standing, having been propagated largely via the internet and via photocopies passed from one person to another.

As I’m sure someone with as extensive a knowledge of liturgical matters as yourself must know, changes to liturgical norms or practice, whether they emerge from the Holy See or within a Particular Church, must be communicated through proper means, without which they have no legal force. This letter does not meet the required standard.

Since you would be wise not to take my word for it and indeed since all of us would be wise not to simply take the word of a poster on CAF with regard to any matter (!) you might wish to read the EWTN item on this subject which emphasises that the letter has no legal force. See: ewtn.com/Library/Liturgy/zlitur263.htm

Canon law is explicit on this issue (see canons 26-75 at vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P5.HTM for the laws on process in all their glory.

The intent is precisely to avoid the confusion that will emerge if legal changes are made in an extra-legal way. A proper process for instructing the People of God is not useless red tape, but a safeguard against misunderstanding and the risk of change being introduced via assumption or inference rather than in the prescribed manner. If the dicastery chooses to mandate such a change, they will be obliged to do so in the manner that canon law requires. A response to a private query, which is what the letter you quote was, does not meet those requirements.

I repeat that this is without prejudice to whether the practice of giving blessings is advisable or not. However, it is not helpful to express the thoughts or even the clear preferences of the Congregation for Divine Worship as legally binding until a legal instruction has been issued by them. They may do this tomorrow, in which case this discussion is moot. Or they may never do so.

As you state yourself, the letter contains observations, not instructions. And I realise that some people would prefer to embrace such observations irrespective of whether or not they become legally binding. That would be their right, but there is no concurrent right to say that - as you put it - ‘Rome has stated’ that blessings should not be happening and that ignoring same is tantamount to disobedience or ignorance of liturgical norms. Although you didn’t use those terms, and may not have intended such a reading, they are perhaps implied in the choice of words you did use, in my humble opinion. I think it would be a mistake to make clergy or EMHCs think that they were enacting a practice proscribed by the Holy See when this is not in fact the case

 

[benedictgal]

Without prejudice to the matter of whether it is appropriate for blessings to be offered in lieu of communion, it is worth stating that the document you quote has no proper standing, having been propagated largely via the internet and via photocopies passed from one person to another.

As I’m sure someone with as extensive a knowledge of liturgical matters as yourself must know, changes to liturgical norms or practice, whether they emerge from the Holy See or within a Particular Church, must be communicated through proper means, without which they have no legal force. This letter does not meet the required standard.

Since you would be wise not to take my word for it and indeed since all of us would be wise not to simply take the word of a poster on CAF with regard to any matter (!) you might wish to read the EWTN item on this subject which emphasises that the letter has no legal force. See: ewtn.com/Library/Liturgy/zlitur263.htm

Canon law is explicit on this issue (see canons 26-75 at vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P5.HTM for the laws on process in all their glory.

The intent is precisely to avoid the confusion that will emerge if legal changes are made in an extra-legal way. A proper process for instructing the People of God is not useless red tape, but a safeguard against misunderstanding and the risk of change being introduced via assumption or inference rather than in the prescribed manner. If the dicastery chooses to mandate such a change, they will be obliged to do so in the manner that canon law requires. A response to a private query, which is what the letter you quote was, does not meet those requirements.

I repeat that this is without prejudice to whether the practice of giving blessings is advisable or not. However, it is not helpful to express the thoughts or even the clear preferences of the Congregation for Divine Worship as legally binding until a legal instruction has been issued by them. They may do this tomorrow, in which case this discussion is moot. Or they may never do so.

As you state yourself, the letter contains observations, not instructions. And I realise that some people would prefer to embrace such observations irrespective of whether or not they become legally binding. That would be their right, but there is no concurrent right to say that - as you put it - ‘Rome has stated’ that blessings should not be happening and that ignoring same is tantamount to disobedience or ignorance of liturgical norms. Although you didn’t use those terms, and may not have intended such a reading, they are perhaps implied in the choice of words you did use, in my humble opinion. I think it would be a mistake to make clergy or EMHCs think that they were enacting a practice proscribed by the Holy See when this is not in fact the case

Actually, the document carries a protocol number and has already appeared in Notitiae. In case you are unaware, Notitae is the official publication of the CDWDS. I would not be too quick to disregard the statement made by the CDWDS.

Last month, I had to contact the CDWDS on a matter related to the distribution of Holy Communion by intinction. After my question had been answered and my suspicions confirmed, I asked the prelate about the matter of blessings in lieu of Holy Communion. He said that the the document issued by the Congregation still stands. The prelate further added that there has been discussions about the Papal Masses were people approach the priests with their arms crossed and the priests do not know what that means.

The prelate reiterated that these blessings should not be done. Furthermore, he restated that they are “explicitly” discouraged. The fact that the written statement of the CDWDS is taken in light of the supporting documents cited in each of the five observations is reason enough as to why this should not be happening. I told the prelate that there is resistance to what the CDWDS stated. Your post indicates that kind of resistance, as I read it. The prelate told me that this is the typical response they are getting.

The problem is that information sometimes comes from the bottom up, rather than from the top down. Unfortunately, all too often, that is the case, and it is something that the CDWDS is experiencing. So, this matter does not necessarily have to do with a particular Church; rather, it is trying to correct a serious misunderstanding that has been festering far too long.

Furthermore, Fr. McNamara, while I have much respect for him, is not affiliated with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. You allege that the document does not have the force of law, but, you are ignoring the fact that it is citing documents that do, such as Ecclesia de Mysterio and Canon Law (especially in observations 4 and 5). Thus, as I see it, your arguments and your citations really do not support your point.

 

[revert_jen]

2. The only stories about dropped hosts I’ve seen in these fora have involved attempts to receive on the tongue.

The only time I personally experienced a dropped host it was from Communion in the Hand. My hand was a little sweaty and I personally dropped our Lord and had to crawl under the piano to retrieve Him so that I could consume Him while trying not to cry.

I rarely practice CITH anymore.

Also, now you can’t say you haven’t heard any stories about dropped hosts from CITH.

–Jen

 

[Emerite]

While distributing Holy Communion, my intent for saying “God bless you” would be similar to saying the same to someone who sneezes. It is meant to show empathy and Christian love, with hope that he or she will soon rejoin the congregation in receiving Holy Communion. This friendly gesture and comment, in my estimation, in no way compares to the priest’s liturgical blessing at the end of Mass.

To small children with their parents, I try to make eye contact when saying “God bless you,” and have noticed smiles in return from youngsters, happy to be recognized and, hopefully, giving them a positive attitude about attending Mass.

When, and if, we’re told by proper authorities to discontinue this saying, I’ll certainly comply.

I attended an Episcopal funeral Mass, and thought it was a very nice gesture when the minister invited people from other faiths to approach during Communion time and receive a blessing. I did not go up, but was very cordial when speaking with the minister and parishioners after the service – maybe, God willing, we Christians will all reunite in worship one day.

 

[benedictgal]

While distributing Holy Communion, my intent for saying “God bless you” would be similar to saying the same to someone who sneezes. It is meant to show empathy and Christian love, with hope that he or she will soon rejoin the congregation in receiving Holy Communion. This friendly gesture and comment, in my estimation, in no way compares to the priest’s liturgical blessing at the end of Mass.

To small children with their parents, I try to make eye contact when saying “God bless you,” and have noticed smiles in return from youngsters, happy to be recognized and, hopefully, giving them a positive attitude about attending Mass.

When, and if, we’re told by proper authorities to discontinue this saying, I’ll certainly comply.

I attended an Episcopal funeral Mass, and thought it was a very nice gesture when the minister invited people from other faiths to approach during Communion time and receive a blessing. I did not go up, but was very cordial when speaking with the minister and parishioners after the service – maybe, God willing, we Christians will all reunite in worship one day.

Emerite, the proper authority has already told us: the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. In case you may not realize this, the CDWDS acts in and with the authority of the Holy Father. As I read it, it is a shame that people do not want to take to heart what the CDWDS has stated. And yes, the CDWDS is aware of this as they receive numerous complaints from the faithful that the documents and statements the Congregation issues are ignored.

Just because something is a nice gesture, that does not necessarily make it right. There is nothing in the GIRM nor RS that legtimizes this “blessing” in lieu of Holy Communion. Proper catechesis is needed and spiritual communion should be encouraged.

 

[Emerite]

I will wait for the Holy Father, and subsequent letter from our bishops read at all Masses, to discontinue my kindness of saying “May God bless you” to persons approaching the Communion rail, who are not wishing to receive Holy Communion. I certainly don’t consider this gesture “in lieu of Communion.” I gave a copy of a spiritual Communion for my husband to use during his nursing home Holy Communion duties.

In the alternative, I’ll email all this to our very knowledgeable retired Pastor who studied in Rome and served on the Vatican Council. He’s up to date on all the latest developments. Father McNamara’s letter answer to a question stated that “this matter is presently under the attentive study of the Congregation.” Also the link stated, “At the same time, we pointed out that the legal situation of the usage is murky with bishops making statements falling on both sides of the argument.”

My prayer is that we extraordinary ministers one day become unnecessary because of having enough ordained priests. Pray for vocations.

I can understand your viewpoint, but now ask myself, under these circumstances, “What would Jesus do?” Was he compassionate, or did he turn away sinners?

 

[benedictgal]

I will wait for the Holy Father, and subsequent letter from our bishops read at all Masses, to discontinue my kindness of saying “May God bless you” to persons approaching the Communion rail, who are not wishing to receive Holy Communion. I certainly don’t consider this gesture “in lieu of Communion.” I gave a copy of a spiritual Communion for my husband to use during his nursing home Holy Communion duties.

In the alternative, I’ll email all this to our very knowledgeable retired Pastor who studied in Rome and served on the Vatican Council. He’s up to date on all the latest developments. Father McNamara’s letter answer to a question stated that “this matter is presently under the attentive study of the Congregation.” Also the link stated, “At the same time, we pointed out that the legal situation of the usage is murky with bishops making statements falling on both sides of the argument.”

My prayer is that we extraordinary ministers one day become unnecessary because of having enough ordained priests. Pray for vocations.

I can understand your viewpoint, but now ask myself, under these circumstances, “What would Jesus do?” Was he compassionate, or did he turn away sinners?

It is a shame that you, as I read your statement, refuse to acknowledge the authority of the CDWDS, which acts in the name of and behalf of the Holy Father. Liturgical statements made from the CDWDS carry a great deal of authority, Emerite. To say that you will wait until the Holy Father releases a letter indicates to me that you still do not seem to understand this.

With all due respect, you can ask as many people as you want for their intepretation, but, the CDWDS has pretty much given five clear-cut statements, statements, that as I read these threads, folks seem to want to ignore instead of accept. The Constitution on Sacred Liturgy, as reaffirmed in Redemptionis Sacramentum, specifically states that no one, not even the celebrant, has the authority of adding anything to the liturgy. The bishop’s own duty, as I indicated in the GIRM a few posts ago, is limited. Not even he, on his own authority, can introduce any new “ritual” into the Mass.

Furthermore, your last statement “What would Jesus do” is almost always used when folks try to skirt the issue. Jesus never had any issues with the liturgical norms of Ancient Israel, as His own Father was the one who dictated them. His concern was the fact that Pharisees were trying to impose priestly rituals (washings and the sort) on teh people. Jesus, in fact, charged St. Peter with binding and loosening (see Matthew 16). The Petrine binding and loosening is extended by the Successor of St. Peter to the Roman Curia that acts with his authority. One of those Curial Congregations is the CDWDS.

While I respect Fr. McNamara, he is not an official with the CDWDS. As someone who holds a journalism degree, I was taught to go to the direct source if I want to find out something. In this case, it may be a pain in the lower extremities (and entail some sleep deprivation) to contact the CDWDS, I will do so if I want the direct story. In fact, I have found the CDWDS more “customer-service” friendly than the USCCB.

 

[corsair]

And this is exactly why I NEVER receive from a Extraordinary Minister. Most of them have been poorly taught. Working on getting to the EF Mass permanently so I don’t have to worry about this sort of thing. Until then I’ll cross communion lines to recieve from a priest.

 

[paperwight]

I surprises me that people can’t seem to see the difference between a kindly ‘God bless you’ said by an EMHC, versus a solemn ‘May Almighty God bless you, in the name of etc’.

Is that so? They genuinely can’t see the difference? Don’t they themselves occasionally say to other people ‘God bless you’ or similar kind words after chatting to them in the street especially after perhaps hearing of some family crisis but not necessarily?

 

[PaulAndrew83]

And this is exactly why I NEVER receive from a Extraordinary Minister. Most of them have been poorly taught. Working on getting to the EF Mass permanently so I don’t have to worry about this sort of thing. Until then I’ll cross communion lines to recieve from a priest.

Most Bishops have been poorly taught. Hence the problems with the EMHC’s.

Paul

 

[japhy]

As I’m sure someone with as extensive a knowledge of liturgical matters as yourself must know, changes to liturgical norms or practice, whether they emerge from the Holy See or within a Particular Church, must be communicated through proper means, without which they have no legal force. This letter does not meet the required standard.

No letter has been sent allowing or describing the proper method of blessing a person who comes up during Communion not to receive, either. On the other hand, there is this letter which addresses the issue. How does it address it? Read on…

As you state yourself, the letter contains observations, not instructions. And I realise that some people would prefer to embrace such observations irrespective of whether or not they become legally binding.

As the original recipient of the letter, I would simply point out that the letter’s observations concern existing instructions which are binding. The letter addresses the issue not with a new instruction, but by reminding us of the current instructions and discipline of the Church.

 

[Brendan]

Since you would be wise not to take my word for it and indeed since all of us would be wise not to simply take the word of a poster on CAF with regard to any matter (!) you might wish to read the EWTN item on this subject which emphasises that the letter has no legal force. See: ewtn.com/Library/Liturgy/zlitur263.htm

Canon law is explicit on this issue (see canons 26-75 at vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P5.HTM for the laws on process in all their glory.

The point of error that you make is that you presume that this is a decree. Rather, it is an intrepertation of existing liturgical law by the authoratiative body.

As such, it is Canon 16 that applies

Can. 16 §1. The legislator authentically interprets laws as does the one to whom the same legislator has entrusted the power of authentically interpreting.

§2. An authentic interpretation put forth in the form of law has the same force as the law itself and must be promulgated. If it only declares the words of the law which are certain in themselves, it is retroactive; if it restricts or extends the law, or if it explains a doubtful law, it is not retroactive.

Since it was published in Notatiae, the official record of the CDWDS, it has been promulgated. All bishops recieve copies of this record.

 

[Ignatius]

This question has been bothering me for quite some time now.

I never receive Communion on the hand because I was raised believing in the Real Presence (and because there’s a good chance that the host will fall). I go to a Catholic school, and one time we had a First Friday Mass. I lined up for Communion and when it was my turn, the Minister gestured for me to extend my hand. I hesitated. He refused to give me Communion unless I extended my hand. What could I do? I couldn’t hold up the line, so I extended my hand.

Can a Minister of Communion force you to receive Communion on the hand even if you don’t want to for personal reasons?

No, never! Extend your tongue and wait until you receive the Eucharist.